ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
www.elsevier.com/locate/yjevp
Homeward bound: Introducing a four-domain model of perceived
housing in very old age
Frank Oswalda,, Oliver Schillinga, Hans-Werner Wahla, Agneta Fängeb,
Judith Sixsmithc, Susanne Iwarssond
a
Department of Psychological Ageing Research, Institute of Psychology, University of Heidelberg, Germany
b
Division of Occupational Therapy, Lund University, Sweden
c
Division of Psychology and Social Change, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
d
Division of Gerontology and Caring Sciences, Lund University, Sweden
Abstract
The aim of this article is to introduce an integrative and more comprehensive approach to understanding and measuring perceived
housing in old age. First, four conceptual domains of subjective housing were introduced, based on the assumption that each of the
domains brings a unique perspective to the understanding of perceived housing: housing satisfaction, usability in the home, meaning of
home and housing-related control beliefs. Second, relationships between the proposed domains were empirically examined using
correlative analysis, factor analysis and structural equation modelling (SEM) techniques. Cross-cultural similarities and differences in the
observed empirical relations were then analysed across three Western European countries. Data were drawn from a sub-sample of the
participants in the European ENABLE-AGE Project amounting to 1223 old adults aged 80–89 years and living alone in their private
homes in Swedish, British, and German urban regions. The ENABLE-AGE data set has the advantage of containing measures related to
all four domains of perceived housing which are the focus of this paper. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis as
well as of the SEM give empirical support for the usefulness of the theoretically proposed four component model of perceived housing.
Furthermore, multi-group analysis supports the assumption of similarity of perceived housing among older people living in the different
countries.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The vast majority of older adults live in ordinary
community-based dwellings. Among them, increasing
proportions of older people live alone, especially in the
rapidly growing population of the very old (i.e. 80 years of
age or more) (United Nations Development Programme,
2001). Typically, housing is treated as an important
objective context of ageing in the environmental-gerontology literature (e.g. Wahl, 2001; Wahl & Gitlin, 2006). One
major argument in this respect is that the immediate home
environment is the person’s major living space in old and
particularly very old age, both in terms of the increased
time older people spend at home, as well as the many
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 6221 548114; fax: +49 6221 548112.
E-mail address: frank.oswald@psychologie.uni-heidelberg.de
(F. Oswald).
0272-4944/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.07.002
activities that take place inside the home (Baltes, Maas,
Wilms, Borchelt, & Little, 1999).
Also, there is a strong relationship between age-related
loss in functional capacity, such as vision loss or mobility
impairment, and objective living arrangements. It has been
argued in the environmental press-competence model,
suggested by Lawton and Nahemow (1973), that elderly
people with pronounced functional loss are particularly
vulnerable to environmental challenges such as barriers
within the house or objective distance between the house
and important environmental facilities such as shops,
public transportation stops or park areas (see also Wahl,
Oswald, & Zimprich, 1999). Thus, the home may
compensate for the reduced functional capacity of the
ageing individual, i.e. after the implementation of barrierfree design and a full range of available housing adaptations (Gitlin, 1998). However, although of fundamental
importance, targeting only objective person-environment
ARTICLE IN PRESS
188
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
relations in this context presents a limited perspective on
housing in old age due to its neglect of the symbolic and
experiential dimension of ageing in place (Altman & Low,
1992; Rowles & Chaudhury, 2005; Wahl, Scheidt, &
Windley, 2004). In particular, a high degree of residential
stability in old age reflects an accumulation of home
experience over time. Housing contributes to everyday life
at home in terms of functional links related to behavioural
adaptation as well as in terms of meaningful links related to
identity (Oswald & Wahl, 2005; Rowles, Oswald, &
Hunter, 2004). Over time, a sense of ‘‘dwelling’’ or ‘‘being
in place’’ tends to develop as an expression not only of
habitual routines and cognitive awareness of interior home
spaces but also as a result of a psychological fusion of
person and place at home (Rowles et al., 2004; Sixsmith &
Sixsmith, 1991). In the rest of this article, we use the term
perceived housing to address the totality of subjective
phenomena of experiences and symbolic representations
related to living at home.
Over the years, a number of disciplines have contributed
to the understanding of perceived housing in old age such
as social geography (Rowles & Watkins, 2003), architecture (Després, 1991), anthropology (Miller, 2001; Rubinstein & De Medeiros, 2004), sociology (Mathes, 1978),
occupational therapy (Fänge & Iwarsson, 1999, 2003)
environmental psychology (Hay, 1998; Hayward, 1975;
Manzo, 2003, 2005; Moore, 2000; Sixsmith, 1986; Sommerville, 1997), and environmental gerontology (Oswald &
Wahl, 2005). As a consequence of this, a huge variety of
concepts and terms have been suggested to address
perceived housing. Among these are housing satisfaction,
experience of home, meaning of home, place attachment,
place identity, subjective housing, perceived environmental
control, and usability. One key problem in the literature
dealing with housing is that these concepts are often used
either interchangeably or in a rather isolated manner,
perhaps due to their diverse disciplinary origins. For
example, housing satisfaction has predominantly been
used in the psychology and sociology of ageing in place
(Pinquart & Burmedi, 2004), while place attachment has
been used in the anthropology of ageing (Rubinstein &
Parmelee, 1992) and issues of usability in occupational
therapy (Fänge & Iwarsson, 2003, 2005a, 2005b). Given the
heterogeneity of these constructs, there is a clear need for
an integrative approach which identifies the role of such
concepts in comprehensively documenting the subjective
perception of home in old age.
Furthermore, perceived housing is linked to the existing
sociocultural background (e.g. Rubinstein & De Medeiros,
2004). However, cultural differences in this regard are often
addressed in terms of developmental contexts in early life
or as extremes due to climate, religious background, daily
habits, and economics, e.g. in so-called ‘‘Third World’’
versus ‘‘First World’’ nations (e.g. Hay, 1998; Miller,
2001). Beyond such contrasts, cross-national housingrelated research with older adults has remained quite
rare.
The overall objective of this article is to propose an
integrative and more comprehensive approach to better
understand perceived housing in old age on the conceptual
and empirical level. In terms of the conceptual level, we
argue for the need to consider a family of four domains as a
best available representation of perceived housing: housing
satisfaction, usability in the home, meaning of home, and
housing-related control beliefs. Regarding the empirical
level, we analyse the relationships of the four domains
based on the assumption that each of the domains brings a
unique perspective to the understanding of perceived
housing. In addition, the question of cross-country
usefulness of the four component model will be addressed
by drawing from comparative data available from three
European countries (Germany, Sweden, and the UK). We
start with a case example derived from the same data set
(i.e. the ENABLE-AGE Project) to illustrate the complex
ways in which housing is perceived by older people, then
proceed with a conceptual analysis of perceived housing,
followed by the presentation of respective empirical
findings.
1.1. On the complexity of perceived housing: a case example
Mrs. Scott is 89 years old and living alone in a village
setting in the North West of England. She owns her own
detached bungalow with gardens to front and rear,
abutting a golf course. Over the past 2 years, Mrs. Scott
has become increasing more frail and immobile and at the
time of interview, was suffering from pain in her hips (she
has already experienced three hip operations) and legs,
accompanied by heart, lung and urinary problems. In
addition, she complains of eye and hearing impairments
and general fatigue. In constant pain and with debilitating
symptoms, Mrs. Scott was in remarkably good mental
health, she said, enjoying her life and taking part in social
events with family and friends. For her, home was the
centre of family life, the place her sister (aged 91), her own
children and grandchildren treat as the focus of family life.
Her home is not simply a current lived experience, but a
storehouse of memories and the incarnation of her whole
life lived in this familiar space with her now deceased
husband and young children. Their presence was still felt in
the fabric, the furnishings, the layout and the memorabilia
surrounding her, making this house her home. Mrs Scott
thinks of her home as the centre of her social community,
where friends and neighbours visit, play bridge and gossip.
As she said, ‘‘In my home, the world comes to me!’’.
Home for Mrs. Scott should be a tidy, clean place
offering comfort, privacy and security. However, her health
problems have resulted in her inability to maintain her
home as she had previously done, and to remain
independent, Mrs. Scott required a substantial amount of
domestic and personal care. This meant that her home was
no longer the private refuge it had been in the past, as
carers and helpers woke her up, put her to bed, bathed her,
cooked, cleaned and tidied the house. Interestingly,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
although she had relinquished control of her body and her
home in these respects to paid ‘strangers’, she still felt in
psychological control over her environment, after all, it
was she who gave instructions about when and how to
manage the home. Despite such control, safety and security
were problematic for Mrs. Scott as she feared the
consequences of burglary and falls. Subsequently, she
had reorganized her immediate living space to contain
all she needed on a daily basis, centralizing her life
around her favourite chair within her living room.
From here, she looks out onto her back garden and the
adjoining golf course and waves to the golfers passing by,
unable to get out to chat to them due to the raised
threshold separating garden from home. This she said,
created a huge barrier for her, cutting her off from the
pastimes she loves, gardening and chatting, and effectively
holding her prisoner inside her own home: a home she
does not want to leave despite her frailty because to do so
would not simply be leaving a house but, ‘‘ysplitting up a
family’’.
This case study indicates that Mrs. Scott’s home cannot
be described simply by attitudinal housing satisfaction, but
covers usability to maintain her daily habits and routines.
Moreover it spans the full scope of cognitive, emotional,
behavioural, physical and social meanings as well as being
important in terms of perceived control over the environment. In sum, understanding of the psycho-social home
requires the integration of satisfaction, meaning of home,
usability and housing-related control.
1.2. Description of four domains of perceived housing
1.2.1. Housing satisfaction
Housing satisfaction is the classic measurement of
perceived housing and used in many studies around the
globe since the 1960s (e.g. Aragonés, Francescato, &
Gärling, 2002; Pinquart & Burmedi, 2004). The potential of
the construct of housing satisfaction lies in its ambition to
provide a broad and simple overall attitudinal and mostly
cognitive evaluation of housing (Hidalgo & Hernadez,
2001). Housing satisfaction is a well-established construct
in assessing the perceived quality of the home (e.g. for a
summary see Aragonés et al., 2002; Hidalgo & Hernadez,
2001; Weidemann & Anderson, 1985). However, there is
neither a generally accepted definition nor a generally
acknowledged methodological standard to measure housing satisfaction, although in survey research single item
measures are used quite frequently (Pinquart & Burmedi,
2004). Research has repeatedly revealed that housing
satisfaction could also be understood as a complex
outcome of demographic and health-related circumstances
as well as objective and subjective characteristics of the
person’s environment (e.g. Christensen, Carp, Cranz, &
Whiley, 1992; Heywood, Oldman, & Means, 2002; Jirovec,
Jirovec, & Bosse, 1984). A meta-analysis has revealed that
the association between residential conditions and residential satisfaction is stronger in younger than in older
189
samples, indicating that old people base their satisfaction
evaluation less strongly on objective characteristics (Pinquart & Burmedi, 2004). Indeed, high levels of housing
satisfaction among older people have frequently been
reported in objectively poor living arrangements, labelled
as the housing satisfaction paradox (Kivett, 1988; Staudinger, 2000; Walden, 1998). Older people seem to be
particularly adept at adapting to different objective living
conditions and sustaining high levels of satisfaction
(Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Schwarz & Strack,
1991; Staudinger, 2000).
In conclusion, housing satisfaction is a common and
important indicator to measure perceived housing (e.g.
Heywood et al., 2002). The construct is, however, limited
with respect to the understanding of home because it
provides only a global and predominantly cognitive
evaluation of the relation of the ageing person to her/his
home environment (Pinquart & Burmedi, 2004; Staudinger,
2000). To contain the scope of housing satisfaction in the
current study, we focus entirely on satisfaction with
physical housing conditions.
1.2.2. Usability in the home
Usability in the home is a construct predominantly
developed within occupational therapy research since end
of the 1990s (e.g. Fänge & Iwarsson, 2003; Iwarsson &
Ståhl, 2003). Its major focus is on activity and functionality, addressing perceived possibilities to perform necessary and preferred activities in a given home environment
(Fänge & Iwarsson, 2005a, 2005b). Usability has been
defined as the extent to which the person’s housing needs
and preferences can be fulfilled in terms of activity
performance at home (Fänge & Iwarsson, 2005a), comprising a personal component, an environmental component,
and an activity component. The personal component
relates to functional capacity, adaptive strategies, and
motivation, while the environmental component relates to
the physical environmental barriers in the home and its
close surroundings. Finally, the activity component relates
to the personal repertoire of activities in the home (Fänge
& Iwarsson, 2005a, 2005b; Iwarsson & Ståhl, 2003), and
their characteristics (Fänge & Iwarsson, 2005a). Usability
is based on core assumptions underlying occupational
therapy theory, i.e. person–environment–activity transactions (Fänge & Iwarsson, 2003, 2005a; Law et al., 1996), as
well as on Lawton’s ecological model (Lawton & Nahemow, 1973). Empirical studies have focused on the
relationship between housing accessibility and usability
(Fänge & Iwarsson, 2003), as well as longitudinal changes
along housing adaptation processes (Fänge & Iwarsson,
2005a, 2005b).
In conclusion, usability adds to the understanding of
perceived housing mainly by considering the perceived
usefulness of the home environment for everyday activities.
In this way, and very similar to the limits of the concept of
housing satisfaction, it provides only a partial understanding of perceived housing.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
190
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
1.2.3. Meaning of home
The concept of meaning of home refers to a body of
work which has grown since the end of the 1970s based on
the work from Hayward (1975), Relph (1976), Rowles
(1978) and others. Studies framed within anthropology
(e.g. Rubinstein & De Medeiros, 2004), social geography
(Rowles, 1983), and psychology (e.g. Hayward, 1975;
Manzo, 2003, 2005; Moore, 2000; Oswald & Wahl, 2005)
have contributed to phenomena concerned with symbolic
representations of space and place and personal meanings
linked to one’s home. Based on theories of place identity
(e.g. Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983; Stedman,
2002), the home is not only considered to fulfil objective
functions (e.g. shelter, support, access, use), but represents
individual meanings related to the inhabitant’s experience
and personality. The concept of meaning of home is used to
cover subjectively meaningful habits, social contacts,
evaluations, goals, values, cognitions and emotions of a
person in relation to their home (Manzo, 2005; Marcus,
1995; Moore, 2000; Oswald & Wahl, 2005; Sixsmith, 1986).
The meaning of home describes the accumulation of a
range of place attachment processes, operating when
people form affective, cognitive, behavioural and social
bonds to a particular setting (Brown & Perkins, 1992),
thereby transforming space into place (Altman & Low,
1992; Rowles & Watkins, 2003). In contrast to housing
satisfaction, meaning of home is not only related to
evaluative components of the home. Rather, behavioural
aspects of meaning can reflect familiarity and routines
developed over time, and cognitive, emotional and social
aspects of meaning are manifest through processes of
reflecting on the past, symbolically represented in certain
places and cherished objects.
Moreover, the need to cope with impairments in old age
can be linked to specific meaning patterns. A study with
mobility impaired and blind elders revealed different
meanings in regard to physical, behavioural, cognitive,
emotional and social aspects (Oswald & Wahl, 2005). Such
experiential differences support the notion that individual
meaning may serve as a resource to cope with everyday
problems but also that the home may become a potentially
problematic space, an environment of stress and distress
(Sixsmith & Sixsmith, 1991).
In conclusion, the concept of meaning of home covers a
broad scope of evaluations related to the home environment,
represented subjectively within the individual. However, there
are still other components relevant for perceived housing,
which are not covered by the concepts of housing satisfaction,
usability or meaning of home. In particular, we argue that
control beliefs in the domain of housing provide a fourth class
of processes to be integrated in our model of perceived
housing (e.g. Slangen-de Kort, 1999).
ceived control in different domains of life (Lachman, 1986;
Lachman & Burack, 1993; Levenson, 1973, 1981). Given
that striving for control has advantages for all species
capable of influencing their environment (Schulz &
Heckhausen, 1999), control beliefs have been found to
reflect a major driving force in explaining the course and
outcome of ageing (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995; Levenson,
1973; Smith, Marsiske, & Maier, 1996). Psychological
control theory has recently also been applied to the housing
domain (Oswald, Wahl, Martin, & Mollenkopf, 2003a,
2003b). Housing-related control beliefs explain events at
home either as contingent upon one’s own behaviour, or
upon luck, chance, fate, and powerful others. Here, the
major argument is that control beliefs related to the
regulation of person–environment interchange at home
becomes increasingly important in very old age. Striving
for housing-related control has also been shown to be
linked to the maintenance of independence in daily living
and well-being in very old age (Oswald et al., 2003a,
2003b). Furthermore, housing-related control beliefs can
be expected to trigger residential decisions such as ‘staying
put’ versus moving to sheltered housing or institutional
settings. In conclusion, we argue that control beliefs in
relation to housing add a unique and innovative aspect to
the concept of perceived housing.
1.2.4. Housing-related control beliefs
This strand of research to be considered within any
integrative and comprehensive model of perceived home
derives from psychological theories and studies on per-
3.1. Project context
2. Empirical research objective and hypothesis
Our theoretical contention is that all four domains—
housing satisfaction, usability, meaning of home, and
housing-related control beliefs—should be simultaneously
considered for a more comprehensive understanding and
holistic empirical analysis of perceived housing. Concerning the four domains of perceived housing, we strove to
analyse empirical relations between indicators representing
these domains, in order to detect to what extent these four
domains overlap or differ in content.
We hypothesized that the domains of housing satisfaction, meaning of home, usability in the home, and
perceived housing-related control cover distinct dimensions
of housing evaluation. Applying a combination of exploratory and confirmatory data analytic procedures, we
expected to find a four-factor solution which supports the
distinctiveness of the four conceptual domains.
Furthermore, we explored whether comparable relationships between the constructs do exist in all three European
sub-samples selected for this study (Germany, Sweden, and
the UK), indicating universality of perceived housing and
by this also the cross-country usefulness of our conceptual
proposal and its empirical validity.
3. Method
This study is based on data collected for an extensive
European research project, the ENABLE-AGE Project
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
(Iwarsson, Nygren, & Slaug, 2005; Iwarsson, Wahl, &
Nygren, 2004). The overarching aim of the project was to
explore the home environment as a determinant for healthy
ageing in very old age using a longitudinal perspective in
five countries (Germany, Sweden, the UK, Hungary, and
Latvia). The project comprised three major parts. First, a
macro level update on housing policies was conducted.
Second, a longitudinal survey comprising two measurement points (N ¼ 1918) took place (ENABLE-AGE
Survey Study) and third, an in-depth study based on
interviews and case study analyses was completed (ENABLE-AGE In-depth Study). The data used in this article
derived from the ENABLE-AGE Survey Study with its
rather comprehensive focus on perceived housing, supported by a case example derived from the ENABLE-AGE
In-depth Study.
3.2. Sample
For this study, data were drawn from the Swedish,
British, and German sub-samples of the data set, for two
reasons. First, the target sample in each country was
comparable in terms of the age-range, i.e. 80–89-year-old
adults living in single-person private households in
urban districts (about 75% women), whereas in both
East-European countries the age range was 5 years
younger due to different life expectancy rates (Iwarsson
et al., 2004). Second, we decided to emphasize in this
first stage of analyses those countries which have
been members of the European Union for many years,
assuming a considerable amount of comparability in
societal infrastructure and housing standards for older
adults. In all, the sample used for this study comprised
N ¼ 1223 80–89-year-old adults, who took part in the first
measurement point of the ENABLE-AGE Survey Study
(see Table 1).
As shown in Table 1, differences in education and
objective finances existed in the three countries, although it
should be noted that subjective evaluations of financial
resources were comparable in all three research sites.
Although there were also differences in subjective health
191
and duration of living, this nevertheless was a relatively
fragile sample of very old adults who on average had lived
in their current homes over a long time period.
3.3. Data collection procedure
All instruments used in the survey were administered in
individual face-to-face sessions at home visits. The instruments and project-specific questions were translated and
back translated into the different languages of the
participating countries, followed by pilot examinations
and bi-lingual final language adjustments. Involving
researchers and interviewers from all participating countries, a series of 3-day interviewer courses were held,
focusing on reliable administration of all instruments
involved (Iwarsson et al., 2005). Next, in each country
the national project leader arranged team courses, instructing and training all interviewers in their own language and
context.
In Sweden and Germany, participants were randomly
sampled from official registers in urban regions. Intended
participants were consecutively included from sampling
lists, via mailed letters followed by phone calls using a
project-specific sampling strategy with well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria (Iwarsson et al., 2005). All
participants were enrolled after informed consent had been
given, following the ethical guidelines and procedures for
formal ethical consent of each country. In the UK, where
official urban registers are not made available to researchers in the way necessary for the ENABLE-AGE Project,
participants were sampled through (Primary Care Trust)
PCT lists followed by invitation letters. Since communitydwelling very old persons who live alone are considered to
be very sensitive and vulnerable concerning extensive
external contact with researchers, as expected the refusal
rates were considerable (58.9% in Sweden, 67.2% in
Germany; no information available in the UK due to
ethical considerations). However, the most important
reasons for refusal were comparable in all three countries,
such as ‘‘lack of interest or time’’, ‘‘poor health’’, and
‘‘interview too stressful’’.
Table 1
Sample description
p
(N ¼ 1223)
(M, S.D.) or (%, n)
Sweden
(n ¼ 397)
Germany
(n ¼ 450)
UK
(n ¼ 376)
Age (years)
Gender (% women)
Education (years of schooling)
Finances (h per month and person)a
Subjective evaluation of finances
(% rating income as ‘‘high’’)
Subjective health (satisfaction 1–5)b
Duration of living in same home (years)
84.6 (3.1)
74.6%
8.8 (2.2)
1015
85.1 (3.2)
78.4%
11.6 (2.6)
1569
84.8 (2.7)
70.0%
9.9 (1.9)
1044
***
***
10.6% (42)
3.6 (0.8)
21.8 (17.4)
9.1% (41)
2.8 (1.1)
33.5 (19.4)
10.9% (41)
3.0 (1.0)
25.0 (18.3)
n.s.
***
***
Note: Statistical test for differences: F-test (means), Chi-Square-test (frequencies) with not significant: n.s., po:05 ; po:01 ; po:001 .
a
In Germany 122 participants, in Sweden 54, in the UK 68 participants refused to give information.
b
Subjective evaluation, higher scores indicate lower subjective health (SF 36).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
192
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
3.4. Instruments
3.4.1. Housing satisfaction
To measure housing satisfaction (HSAT) a single item
measure was used which specifically targeted satisfaction
with the condition of the house (‘‘Are you happy with the
condition of your home?’’). This item was drawn from the
more extensive Housing Options for Older People (HOOP)
questionnaire (Heywood et al., 2002). The question on
housing conditions was answered on a five point scale from
1 ¼ ‘‘definitely not’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘yes, definitely’’, adapted from
the original questionnaire (Sixsmith & Sixsmith, 2002). In
the English assessment battery the notion of satisfaction
was represented by the word ‘‘happy’’ to remain close to
normal everyday language used by older people as
identified in the ENABLE-AGE qualitative pilot studies.
Indeed, the wording of this question varied slightly in each
of the participating countries to reflect common language
usage around issues of housing satisfaction. In Sweden this
was translated most effectively in terms of ‘‘feeling
content’’ and in Germany, the term equivalent to
‘‘satisfied’’ was used. The English items of all questionnaires (as well as M, S.D., and range) are listed in Table 2
(see Table 2).
3.4.2. Usability in the home
In order to capture usability, the Usability in My Home
Questionnaire (UIMH) (Fänge & Iwarsson, 1999, 2003,
2005a, 2005b) was applied. This instrument addresses the
degree to which the physical housing environment supports
the performance of activities at home, based on individual
subjective judgements. Each item is rated on a 5-point scale
from 0 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘fully agree’’ (see Table 2).
The items of the instrument have been found in earlier
research to reveal to a three-factor pattern (Fänge &
Iwarsson, 2003) addressing activity aspects, personal and
social aspects, and physical environmental aspects of
usability. Psychometric analyses in the present data set,
however, indicated a limited level of internal consistency
(Cronbach’s ao0:50) in the ‘‘personal and social aspects’’
sub-scale. Thus, only two sub-scales were used in the
current study: ‘‘Activity aspects’’ (UMH1: 4 items, sumscore; Cronbach’s a ¼ 0:67) and ‘‘Physical environmental
aspects’’ (UMH2: 6 items, sum-score; a ¼ 0:75).
3.4.3. Meaning of home
To measure meaning of home, we used the Meaning of
Home Questionnaire (MOH) which was developed to
assess older individual’s subjective meanings in four areas
of particularly theoretical importance: physical, behavioural, cognitive/emotional and social (Oswald et al., 1999).
Participants were instructed to judge to what extent they
personally agreed or disagreed with the statements on an
11-point scale from 0 ¼ ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to
10 ¼ ‘‘strongly agree’’ (see Table 2). The development of
the scale covered open-ended examinations of a broad
scope of contents for each domain (for details see Oswald
& Wahl, 2005), purposefully selected to represent pronounced heterogeneity of perceived housing. Psychometric
analyses in the present data set indicated acceptable
internal consistency (Cronbach’s a40:50) in three out of
four sub-scales, that is physical aspects (MOH1: seven
items, a ¼ 0:60), behavioural aspects (MOH2: six items,
a ¼ 0:67), and cognitive/emotional aspects (MOH3: 10
items, a ¼ 0:62). The sub-scale on social aspects (five items,
a ¼ 0:44) was discarded due to its low reliability.
3.4.4. Housing-related control beliefs
Housing-related control beliefs were assessed with the
Housing-related Control Beliefs Questionnaire (HCQ).
This scale was developed as a 24-item questionnaire, based
on the widely used psychological dimensions of Internal
Control (8 items, sum-score), External Control: Powerful
Others (8 items, sum-score), and External Control: Chance
(8 items, sum-score) (Oswald et al., 2003a, 2003b).
Participants were instructed to judge to what extent they
personally agree or disagree with the statements on a fivepoint scale from 1 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘very much’’ (see
Table 2). ‘‘Internal Control’’ means that housing-related
events are highly contingent upon a person’s own behaviour,
where personal responsibility implies that one is responsible
for what happens. ‘‘External Control’’ means either some
other person is responsible or things happen by mere luck, by
chance, or by fate. However, psychometric analyses in the
present data set indicated poor levels of internal consistency
in the internal control sub-scale and only medium internal
consistency in both external control sub-scales. To improve
the psychometric qualities of this instrument in the current
analysis, the internal control sub-scale was removed. The
removal of the internal control sub-scale was in accordance
with the conceptual argument that housing-related external
control is of particular interest in perceived housing in very
old age (e.g. Baltes, Freund, & Horgas, 1999). Further, both
external sub-scales were combined, resulting in sufficient
reliability (HEXC: 16 items, a ¼ 0:67).
3.5. Data analysis
Descriptive results are based on bi-variate correlative
findings. To acknowledge the large sample, correlation
coefficients are reported only with po0:001. Regarding the
effect sizes of correlation coefficients, data analyses will
follow Cohen’s proposal (1988), arguing that rX0.1 is
considered as a ‘‘small effect’’, r from 0.3 to 0.5 as a
‘‘medium effect’’, and rX0.5 as a ‘‘large effect’’.
To test for the empirical dimensionality of the set of
instruments, we chose an exploratory factor analysis
approach using principal component analysis. The benefit
of exploratory factor analysis is the ‘‘unconditional’’
examination of the factorial structure, enabling detection
of factors not hypothesized a priori. With respect to the
exploratory analysis, we expect from our hypothesis that a
four factor solution—revealing the four domains as basic
factors—could be accepted from the results.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
193
Table 2
Instruments on perceived housing in old age
Remaining items of questionnaires on perceived housing (numbers in order of presentation in
the questionnaire)
Housing satisfaction (Sixsmith & Sixsmith, 2002)
Housing satisfaction (1 item)
1. Are you happy with the condition of your home?
Usability in my home (Fänge & Iwarsson,1999)
Usability in my home: activity aspects (4 items)
1. In terms of how you normally manage your personal hygiene, dressing, visiting the toilet, or
how you eat, to what extent is the home environment suitably designed in relation to this?
2. In terms of how you normally manage your cooking/heating of food or preparation of
snacks, to what extent is the home environment suitably designed in relation to this?
3. In terms of how you normally manage your washing up, cleaning, care of flowers, to what
extent is the home environment suitably designed in relation this?
4. To what extent is the home environment suitably designed in relation to how you normally
manage your washing, ironing, mangling, or repair of clothes?
Usability in my home: physical environmental aspects (6 items)
10. How usable do you feel that your home environment is in general?
11. How usable do you feel that the environment outside your home is?
12. How usable do you feel that the entrance to your home is?
13. How usable do you feel that the secondary spaces in your home are?
15. How usable do you feel that the balcony, patio, or garden is?
16. How usable do you feel that the interior of your home is?
Meaning of home (Oswald, Mollenkopf, & Wahl, 1999)
Meaning of home: physical aspects (‘‘Being at home means for mey’’) (7 items)
1. Living in a place which is well-designed and geared to my needs
6. Having to live in poor housing conditions [item value was reversed for calculations]
7. Having a nice view
12. Living in a place that is comfortable and tastefully furnished
15. Feeling that the home has become a burden [item value was reversed for calculations]
20. Having a base from which I can pursue activities
25. Being confined to the rooms (and things) inside the home [item value was reversed for
calculations]
Meaning of home: behavioural aspects (‘‘Being at home means for mey’’) (6 items)
2. Managing things without the help of others
8. Doing everyday tasks (e.g. housework)
13. Being able to change or rearrange things as I please
16. Not having to accommodate anyone’s wishes but my own
21. No longer being able to keep up with the demands of my home (e.g. maintenance) [item
value was reversed]
26. Being able to do whatever I please
Meaning of home: cognitive/emotional aspects (‘‘Being at home means for mey’’) (10 items)
3. Being familiar with my immediate surroundings
4. Feeling safe
9. Being bored [item value was reversed for calculations]
10. Knowing my home like the back of my hand
14. Being able to relax
17. Thinking about the past (e.g., important persons and events)
18. Enjoying my privacy and being undisturbed
22. Thinking about what living here will be like in the future
23. Feeling comfortable and cosy
27. Feeling lonely [item value was reversed for calculations]
Housing-related control beliefs (Oswald et al., 2003)
Housing-related control beliefs: external control (16 items)
2. I rely to a great extent upon the advice of others when it comes to helpful improvements to
my home
3. Having a nice place is all luck. You cannot influence it; you just have to accept it
5. Whether or not I will be able to stay in my home will probably depend on other people
6. It’s purely a matter of luck whether or not neighbours will step in if I need help
8. In order to do anything interesting outside of my home I have to rely on others
9. Whether or not I can stay in my home depends on luck and circumstance
11. I must rely on others when it comes to making use of support services and facilities in my
local area
12. You just have to live with the way your home is; you cannot do anything about it
Mean
S .D .
Range
4.62
0.77
1–5a
4.60
0.77
1–5b
4.58
0.90
1–5
4.46
1.10
1–5
3.98
1.70
1–5
4.63
4.31
4.44
4.25
4.13
4.70
0.72
1.02
0.92
1.10
1.49
0.62
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
9.15
9.57
7.94
9.24
8.98
8.55
7.58
1.69
1.57
2.80
1.58
2.18
2.62
3.72
0–10c
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
8.15
7.97
8.50
8.63
7.35
2.70
2.81
2.78
2.68
3.44
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
9.44
1.59
0–10
9.33
9.40
8.42
9.35
9.56
7.56
9.14
4.74
9.57
6.95
1.48
1.37
2.74
1.69
1.23
3.08
1.87
3.99
1.20
3.55
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10
2.77
1.32
1–5d
2.44
2.79
2.65
2.69
3.71
2.43
1.29
1.35
1.31
1.47
1.28
1.37
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
2.94
1.48
1–5
ARTICLE IN PRESS
194
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
Table 2 (continued )
Remaining items of questionnaires on perceived housing (numbers in order of presentation in
the questionnaire)
Mean
S.D.
Range
14. When other people offer to help around the house or help me outside the home, I can’t say
no
15. Where and how I live has happened more by chance than anything else
17. Other people have told me how to arrange the furnishings in my home
18. It’s a case of luck or chance whether I will be able to continue my present way of life in my
home in the future
20. I listen to the advice of others when they tell me not to change anything in my own home
21. The way my home has been set up just happened by chance, over time
23. Other people are to blame if my home is not a place where I can enjoy life
24. Whether or not there are support services or community facilities in my neighbourhood is
just a matter of luck
2.97
1.46
1–5
2.84
1.73
3.59
1.52
0.98
1.27
1–5
1–5
1–5
2.45
3.17
1.78
3.09
1.28
1.45
1.01
1.37
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
a
From 1 ¼ ‘‘definitely not’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘yes, definitely’’.
From 0 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘fully agree’’.
c
From 0 ¼ ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 10 ¼ ‘‘strongly agree’’.
d
From 1 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘very much’’.
b
Next, to test the hypothetically proposed and empirically
revealed four factor model’s fit to the data, a confirmatory
factor analysis approach, indicating a structural equation
model (SEM), was considered to be the optimal strategy.
Confirmatory factor analysis offers the benefits of estimating how well the model fits the data and further analysing
structural relations between the latent factors specified.
With respect to confirmatory analysis, we expected good
model fit confirming the four factor model, with the latent
factors representing the four domains. As we expected
correlations between single indicators across domains, we
computed modification indices and included these singleindicator cross-domain correlations which showed a strong
impact on model fit. Evaluation of model fit was based on
the normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI),
and root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA),
and we followed widely used ‘‘rules of thumb’’ for good
model fit, i.e. NFI and CFI40.9 and RMSEA o0.05 (for
discussion of SEM fit evaluation see Hu & Bentler, 1999;
Marsh, Balla, & Hau, 1996). We did not use the w2-test of
overall model fit due to the well-known problem of overrejection of true models due to large sample sizes.
To address potential cultural differences between the
different research sites in terms of structural relations, a
multi-group analysis was conducted (multi-sample SEM),
involving simultaneous estimation of sample-specific parameter values for the three sub-samples (e.g. Bollen, 1989).
Thus, this method allows for between-country differences
in the structural parameters (e.g. correlations between
latent factors), but also serves to test the goodness of fit of
the proposed factor structure across the different research
sites.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive findings on the bivariate level
In order to empirically reveal the relationships between
the selected domains of perceived housing, zero-order
correlations were found, as shown in Table 3 (see Table 3).
Basically, concerning the relation of different aspects of
perceived housing, high usability scores are linked with
high amounts of different aspects of meaning of home and
housing satisfaction. Moreover, usability and meaning
scores were negatively linked to external control beliefs.
That is, participants who consider their homes as useful for
daily activities have stronger meaningful links to their
homes, are more satisfied with their housing conditions and
think less often that others are responsible for what
happens in their homes.
The set of bivariate interrelations between subscales for
domains of perceived housing revealed statistically significant but low to medium correlations, indicating that the
measurement scales and domains were largely independent
of each other due to content specificity. Moreover, the
findings show that these domains were not completely
independent, i.e. they represent different facets of perceived
housing.
Highest correlations were found within the ‘‘Usability in
My Home’’ questionnaire between the scales for environmental and activity aspects (r ¼ 0:52) as well as within the
‘‘Meaning of Home’’ questionnaire sub-scales, especially
between the scales for physical and behavioural aspects of
meaning, (r ¼ 0:50) respectively. The findings further
revealed that concepts which are expected to be closely
related due to overlapping contents, especially activity
aspects of usability and behavioural aspects of meaning of
home (r ¼ 0:38), are linked to each other, whereas, for
instance, the global indicator of ‘‘Housing Satisfaction’’
and the remaining measures of perceived housing are
interrelated only weakly (ranging between 0.11 and
0.28). Finally, there were consistently negative (albeit
relatively weak) correlations between ‘‘Housing-related
External Control Beliefs’’ and other measures of perceived
housing (ro 0:25), indicating that believing events at
home are contingent upon external influences is higher
when perceived usability, meaning and satisfaction is
lower.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
4.2. Test of the central hypothesis: empirical distinctiveness
of the four domain model of perceived housing
To determine the underlying factor structure of perceived housing measured in this study, an exploratory
factor analysis was conducted with a slightly reduced
sample of N ¼ 1189 due to missing values. The factor
structure and factor loadings are shown in Table 4. Results
revealed one strong first factor (eigenvalue 2.66, explaining
38% of variance) and another three factors explaining
12–16% of the variance each (eigenvalues 1.13; 0.92; 0.81
resp.) whereas the remaining factors showed lower
proportions of variance explanation o8%. This can be
interpreted in terms of a four factor solution, explaining
79.0% of the variance, indicating that considerable
amounts of perceived housing can be explained by the
four domains of meaning, usability, external control beliefs
and satisfaction. The Varimax rotated pattern of factor
loadings shows all subscales addressing meaning of home
with highest loadings (all 40.72) on factor 1, both
subscales addressing usability in the home with highest
loadings (0.78, 0.87) on factor 2, while not substantially
loading on the other factors. Factor 3 is dominated by the
external control belief sum-score (0.98) and the housing
satisfaction single item score is exclusively loaded on factor
4 (0.96). Thus exploratory factor analysis revealed evidence
for a four factor solution such that the four domains of
perceived housing are distinct as expected hypothetically.
Notably, regarding the eigenvalues, the four factor solution
195
appeared to be the most suitable compared to all other
possible factor structures which might have been used for
further interpretation.
Results of the test of the four factor model’s fit to the
data are reported, based on a confirmatory factor analysis
approach. The findings are shown in Fig. 1, by indicating a
structural equation model (SEM) computation (see Fig. 1).
As there was only one observed indicator for housing
satisfaction (HSAT, single item) and external housing
related control beliefs (HEXC, sum-score), measurement
error variance had to be constrained to zero in order to
identify the model (i.e. observed scores are taken as error
free measures of the underlying true-score). The four
domains of perceived housing (in circles) were allowed to
correlate, as implied in the theoretical considerations made
above.
First, the SEM results revealed a ‘‘close to good’’ model
fit (RMSEA ¼ 0.055; NFI ¼ 0.914; CFI ¼ 0.931) (not in
the figure). Modification indices showed a correlation
between MOH2 (meaning of home: behavioural aspects)
and UMH1 (usability in the home: activity aspects) as
those leading to best fit improvement (for explanation of
modification indices, see Bollen, 1989). This cross-domain
correlation was in line with the theoretical considerations
and correlative findings on activity/behaviour-oriented
aspects of perceived housing. Allowing for just this
additional single-indicator correlation led to good model
fit with RMSEA ¼ 0.041 (90% confidence interval
0.031–0.052), NFI ¼ 0.948, CFI ¼ 0.964 (see Fig. 1)
Table 3
Interrelations between aspects of perceived housing in old age
Domains of perceived housing
HSAT
UMH1
UMH2
MOH1
MOH2
MOH3
Housing satisfaction (HSAT)
Usability in my home: activity aspects (UMH1)
Usability in my home: physical environmental aspects (UMH2)
Meaning of home: physical aspects (MOH1)
Meaning of home: behavioural aspects (MOH2)
Meaning of home: cognitive/emotional Aspects (MOH3)
Housing-related external control beliefs (HEXC)
1.00
0.17
0.28
0.26
0.13
0.11
0.11
1.00
0.52
0.26
0.38
0.16
0.25
1.00
0.34
0.34
0.18
0.23
1.00
0.50
0.44
0.19
1.00
0.43
0.19
1.00
n.s.
Note: Correlation coefficients p40:001; n.s. ¼ not significant.
Table 4
Exploratory factor structure of the set of instruments on perceived housing
(N ¼ 1189)
Factors and factor loading
Communality
Domains of perceived housing
1
2
3
4
Meaning of home: physical aspects (7 items)
Meaning of home: behavioural aspects (6 items)
Meaning of home: cognitive/emotional aspects (10 items)
Usability in my home: activity aspects (4 items)
Usability in my home: physical environmental aspects (6 items)
Housing-related control beliefs: external control (16 items)
Housing satisfaction (1 item)
0.76
0.72
0.85
0.14
0.16
0.07
0.09
0.17
0.39
0.00
0.87
0.78
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.10
0.05
0.12
0.08
0.98
0.04
0.26
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.26
0.04
0.96
Note: Factor analysis using principal component analysis revealed a four-factor solution, explaining 79.0% of the variance.
0.69
0.68
0.72
0.79
0.71
0.99
0.94
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
196
0.37 / 0.28 / 0.17
1
Physical
Aspects
1
1
1
Behavioral Cog./Emo.
Aspects
Aspects
1
Phys./Env. Hous.-rel.
External
Aspects
Control
Activity
Aspects
1
1
Meaning
of
Home
1
Usability
in the
Home
Hous.-rel.
Control
Beliefs
Satisfact.
w. Home
Conditions
1
Housing
Satisfaction
0.49 / 0.52 / 0.60
-0.10 / -0.15 / -0.16
-0.21 / -0.42 / -0.38
0.37 / 0.36 / 0.26
0.19 / 0.22 / 0.33
-0.37 / -0.39 / -0.34
Fig. 1. Confirmatory factor structure of the set of instruments on perceived housing. Note. Numbers attached to double-headed arrows: correlations for
German/Swedish/UK sample. RMSEA ¼ 0.041; NFI ¼ 0.948; CFI ¼ 0.964; w2 ¼ 78.6 (po:001).
indicating that the model now fit well with our data. That
is, perceived housing was best displayed by the selected
four constructs, reflecting four different domains, each
uniquely contributing to the understanding of perceived
housing in old age. Thus, the results from the SEM
confirmed the theoretically proposed underlying factor
structure of the four perceived housing domains meaning,
usability, external control and satisfaction.
4.3. Exploration of comparable empirical relationships
between the four domains of perceived housing in
sub-samples from three European countries (Germany,
Sweden, the UK)
Cultural differences or similarities in terms of structural
relations between the four domains were revealed in the
multi-group analysis for the three sub-samples, i.e.
Germany, Sweden, and the UK, showing relatively little
variability. Although personal and environmental background variables (see again Table 1) and objective
housing conditions could vary within and between the
sub-samples in Germany, Sweden and the UK, the findings
revealed comparable patterns of perceived housing in
different European settings, indicating an expected universality of perceived housing patterns and cross-country
usefulness of this assessment within the limited set of
research sites.
Additionally we found empirical evidence for comparability of the different magnitudes in the correlations
between the domains and respective measures due to their
level of specificity. Estimated correlations between the four
domains (and between the sub-domains MOH2 and
UMH1) are also depicted in Fig. 1. In accordance with
preceding findings (see again Table 2), correlations between
housing-related external control beliefs and housing
satisfaction showing smallest associations in all samples
(r ¼ 0:10; 0.15; 0.16), whereas usability in the home
and meaning of home showed strongest association in all
samples (r ¼ 0:49; 0.52; 0.60). Correlations between usability and meaning on one hand and housing satisfaction
and external control beliefs on the other reach a medium
level.
The experience of usability and personal meaning of
home are thus closely linked, indicating that participants
who were behaviourally, cognitive, and emotionally
attached to their homes tend to consider the home as
useful for necessary everyday activities. Particularly weak
links between housing satisfaction and external control
indicate that participants who were unsatisfied with their
homes do not necessarily feel that others are in charge of
what happens in their homes. Moreover, medium relationships between perceived usability and meaning on one
hand and housing satisfaction and control beliefs on the
other hand indicate that the four constructs reflect not only
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
different contents of perceived housing which exist in all
three European settings but also contribute to perceived
housing in very old age more or less in the same way in all
settings.
5. Discussion
In this article empirical support was given for the
usefulness of a theoretically proposed four component
model of perceived housing across countries in old age.
First four conceptual domains of perceived housing were
introduced, covering a broad range of well-established and
innovative concepts of home evaluations. Second it was
shown that these four domains represent distinct indicators
of perceived housing on the empirical level.
In detail, bivariate correlative findings indicated some
amount of content specificity for all the measures included
into our analyses, but showed also substantial amounts of
interdependencies, pointing towards the existence of higher
order dimensions of perceived housing. Regarding our
hypothesis that a four domain model is adequate for the
understanding of perceived housing, exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses supported the existence of
four theoretically proposed domains of perceived housing.
Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the domains
housing satisfaction, usability in the home, meaning of
home, and external housing-related control beliefs are
empirically distinct aspects of perceived housing, accordingly to the hypothesis. In other words, we found no
striking evidence for a different, ‘‘stronger’’ dimensionality
underlying the seven measures, fitting the data better than
the four-factor solution. Confirmatory factor analysis
revealed good fit of this four-factor model, hence confirming the hypothetical assumption of this pattern of perceived
housing domains in very old age. In sum, these findings
highlight that an integrated understanding of perceived
housing needs to address all these domains in a comprehensive instrument, covering the selected set of measures.
It is important to note that confirming this four-factor
model is not self-evident at all. For usability as well as for
meaning of home, evidence for a common factor underlying the different sub-domains means conceptual improvement and better understanding not implied a priori in the
measurement of these domains. For instance, a person
ranking highly in the behavioural sub-domain of meaning
of home does not necessarily need to have high scores in
the other meaning of home sub-domains as well. However,
as all sub-scales have highest loadings on the same factor,
this often happened.
Regarding the theoretical foundation of the four factors
of perceived housing, the housing satisfaction factor has
found particularly strong recognition in housing theory
and empirical research (e.g. Aragonés et al., 2002; Pinquart
& Burmedi, 2004). However, it should kept in mind that
the satisfaction rating in our study was a general evaluation
of a specific facet of housing (i.e. physical housing
conditions) and not a broad-scale assessment of housing
197
satisfaction (Heywood et al., 2002; Sixsmith & Sixsmith,
2002). What we were able to empirically support was that
this particular satisfaction rating appeared relatively
independent from the other domains of perceived housing
(see again Fig. 1). Although the single-item characteristic
of the satisfaction measure may have promoted low
correlations, one may conclude from the weak links
between housing satisfaction and external control beliefs
as well as from the moderate links between housing
satisfaction and usability or meaning of home, that the
assessment of housing satisfaction alone, as it is done quite
frequently, is far from being sufficient to assess perceived
housing in very old age.
The finding on usability as a latent construct of perceived
housing in very old age is in line with the theoretical and
empirical research related to person–environment–activity
transactions (Fänge & Iwarsson, 2003, 2005a; Iwarsson &
Ståhl, 2003; Law et al., 1996), arguing that usability can be
regarded as a combined activity-related and physical
environment-related aspect of perceived housing. The
latent factor correlations estimated from the confirmatory
factor analysis underpin the relative independence of this
dimension from other aspects of perceived housing,
showing its importance for any comprehensive characterization of the home experience in old age.
Similarly, the clear empirical support found in the
present study for one unique factor covering the subdomains measured by the meaning of home subscales, adds
to a better empirical understanding of a latent construct or
domain of common ‘‘meaningfulness’’ of the home. As has
been found, participants who consider their home as
meaningful for daily behaviour also tend to feel, for
instance, cognitive and emotional bonding to their home.
Such empirical evidence enhances the existing literature on
meaning of home, which has revealed so far as theoretically
rather rich, but empirically rather poor (Marcus, 1995;
Moore, 2000; Oswald & Wahl, 2005; Rowles & Watkins,
2003; Sixsmith, 1986).
Against the background of control theory and findings
on perceived control in different domains of life in old age
(e.g. Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995; Lachman, 1986; Levenson, 1973, 1981), the results revealed the need to address
housing-related control beliefs as an independent dimension of perceived housing in very old age. In particular, this
has been shown with respect to external housing-related
control beliefs. Thus, following theoretical assumptions on
the role of control beliefs in the domain of housing (Oswald
et al., 2003a, 2003b), this study has generated first empirical
evidence to underline the notion that this new domainspecific control dimension with particular importance for
environmental psychology is critical for the better understanding of perceived housing in late life.
In general, the estimated correlations between the four
factors are low to medium for all research sites, showing
substantial independence of the constructs of perceived
housing. Next, we further explored whether comparable
relationships between the constructs exist in three
ARTICLE IN PRESS
198
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
European sub-samples available in the ENABLE-AGE
Project, reflecting similar socio-cultural settings. As was
shown, the identified factor structure of four domains of
perceived housing were confirmed for different countryspecific urban sub-samples, indicating a great amount of
comparability in both the structural patterns of the
domains as well as the relationships between the domains
of perceived housing in Germany, Sweden, and the UK.
Thus, the results from the multi-group analyses underpin
the usefulness of the four component assessment in
different European urban settings. Comparable results in
this regard can be interpreted in terms of a validation of the
findings in different sub-samples. Moreover, the findings
provide empirical support for the assumption of comparable patterns of aspects of perceived housing in very old
age, regardless of different objective circumstances in terms
of the macro-level environment.
Besides the usefulness of our results for future research
purposes, we also see practical potential in the findings.
For example, one may consider inter-individual variation
in perceived housing as a resource or a hindrance for the
regulation of housing and quality of life at large for ageing
people. Strong bonding to the home and the related
positive evaluation of the home’s usefulness may on the
one hand positively contribute to older people’s ability to
cope with increasing problems in carrying out daily
routines and activities. On the other hand, strong bonding
may also hamper the older person’s acknowledgement of
objective problems at home or mitigate against environmental decisions like moving to an objectively better
equipped apartment. However, further studies are needed
to elucidate perceived housing aspects in relation to
everyday problem-solving in later life.
Of course, these findings are subject to limitations. Five
issues should be stressed in this regard: First, three
subscales from the domains of usability, meaning of home
and housing-related control beliefs—that is, personal and
social aspects of usability, social meanings of home and
internal control beliefs—were discarded from the empirical
analyses due to poor psychometric quality. This has
weakened somewhat our empirical argument towards a
rather comprehensive assessment of perceived housing, as
three measures related to our main constructs are not used.
However, note that in the domains of usability and
meaning of home, it was possible to include two out of
three sub-scales (usability) and three out of four sub-scales
(meaning) thus covering substantially the concepts’ semantic substance. Regarding the inclusion of external control
only, it should be noted that findings from longitudinal
studies suggest that external control beliefs are particular
sensitive to age-related changes, and thus, crucial in
explaining independence in daily living and well-being in
old age (e.g. Baltes et al., 1999; Clark-Plaskie & Lachman,
1999). Therefore, we believe that the sole consideration of
external control, while being a limitation of our study,
addresses a major facet of the full control dynamics picture
as people age. There is nevertheless a clear need for the
optimization of the subscales dropped in the present study
in order to show that our argumentation of four distinct
dimensions of perceived housing still holds, when all
subscales considered of theoretical importance are also
part of the measurement model.
Second, the set of concepts and measures in our study
may not be sufficient to cover all facets of perceived
housing. In particular, the single-item measure of satisfaction with housing conditions may be seen as a too rough
measure to represent the full housing satisfaction domain
(e.g. Aragonés et al., 2002; Pinquart & Burmedi, 2004).
However, due to limitations in the duration of interview
capacity of very old persons, some choices had to be made.
Hence we emphasized those domains not yet well
established in relation to perceived housing, such as control
beliefs, usability, and meaning of home and assessed
housing satisfaction in relation only to physical housing
conditions.
Third, as already argued, the single-item measure on
housing satisfaction may be seen as a methodological
shortcoming, as single-item measures could be regarded as
more sensitive to measurement error than multi-item
measures, which might lower their correlations with other
indicators (Anastasi, 1988; Epstein, 1983). However, there
is also considerable evidence indicating sufficient psychometric quality of single-item satisfaction measures (Scherpenzeel, 1995; Veenhoven, 1996).
A fourth limitation may be seen in the generalization of
the findings in terms of a ‘‘universal’’ pattern of perceived
housing in very old age. Although we analysed data from
three different European settings and the results are rather
comparable in these settings, the findings are based on a
selected set of countries with relatively similar cultural
backgrounds. Data from other sites, reflecting more
cultural variety, would be needed to fully address the
question of universality of the structure of perceived
housing (Hay, 1998; Miller, 2001).
Finally, our sample consisted of very old adults living
alone in their community dwellings. Thus, the present
study is limited in its potential to reflect the full range of the
ageing population, such as those being ‘‘young-old’’, i.e.
about 60–80 years of age, cohabiting older people, or older
adults living in institutional settings.
Taken together, insights from our study support the
assumption that the complexity of home (see again our case
example) has been underestimated in earlier research.
While measuring the subjective perception of home using
the measures adapted in the paper produces a promising
and rather comprehensive application, the in-depth understanding of how the home is perceived by very old persons
might be a valuable goal for further research. For example,
qualitative methods might expand our conceptual models.
Bringing together quantitative and qualitative approaches
of perceived housing would herald a new era of research on
perceived home whereby process oriented perspectives on
person–home transactions can be meaningfully pursued
(Oswald & Rowles, 2006).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
Another set of findings from the ENABLE-AGE project
published elsewhere have provided evidence that both
objective characteristics of the home environment and the
subjective experience of home are crucially related with
health and well-being of very old people (Iwarsson,
Nygren, &, Slaug, 2005; Iwarsson, Sixsmith, et al., 2005;
Oswald et al., in press). Thus, further research may address
the complexity of perceived housing in relation to objective
housing conditions such as accessibility and prevalence of
environmental barriers, as well as to age-related outcome
variables, such as independence and well-being. In particular, the mediating impact of perceived housing in order
to maintain or even enhance ‘‘healthy ageing’’ in very old
age seems a promising research objective. Perceived
housing may serve as a resource or mediator to cope with
functional loss in very old age (e.g. due to the environmental press-competence model proposed by Lawton &
Nahemow, 1973) or in addition to processes of home
adaptation and environmental centralisation (Gitlin, 1998;
Rubinstein & Parmelee, 1992).
In terms of application, the findings can contribute to
enrich and strengthen the user’s perspective on perceived
housing in housing counselling and home adaptation
practice (e.g. Fänge & Iwarsson, 2005a, 2005b; Lanspery
& Hyde, 1997). In particular, the current focus on barrier
free building standards needs to be widened to encompass a
more holistic approach that takes seriously both the
objective and subjective, ‘‘invisible’’ aspects of the home.
Housing, health and social care professionals need to be
aware of the importance of the home in the lives of their
clients and to include housing solutions within a multidisciplinary approach to assessment and care planning. In
this regard the current findings can show that perceived
home in old age covers a whole range of housing
experiences beyond mere support and functionality, as it
is reflected, for instance, in the cognitive/emotional aspects
of meaning of home. Using an integrative, comprehensive,
and parsimonious assessment of perceived housing in old
age can sensitize housing professionals to a holistic
approach in order to find individualized and customized
housing solutions (Connell & Sanford, 1997). However,
further steps towards the development of an easy assessment and evaluation procedure of these measures are
needed.
In conclusion, evidence presented in the present paper
suggests that perceived housing in very old age is well
covered by a set of theoretically informed concepts and
related measures, addressing housing satisfaction, usability
in the home, meaning of home and housing-related
external control. That is, a rather comprehensive understanding of perceived housing needs to cover the scope of
personal links to the home (meaning), perceived functional
activity possibilities at home (usability), a global evaluation
perspective (satisfaction) and the perceived agency related
challenges of housing in later life (control). The provided
set of measures was found to be useful to reflect the
proposed domains of perceived housing for very old elders
199
living alone in their urban community dwellings, although
psychometric optimisation of perceived housing measures
still is a challenge and deserves more instrument refinement.
References
Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (Eds.) (1992). Place attachment (Vol. 12). New
York: Plenum Press.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed). New York: Macmillan.
Aragonés, J. I., Francescato, G., & Gärling, T. (2002). Residential
environments. Choice, satisfaction, and behavior. Westport, CT: Bergin
& Gervey.
Baltes, M. M., Freund, A. M., & Horgas, A. L. (1999). Men and women in
the berlin aging study. In P. B. Baltes, & K. U. Mayer (Eds.), The
berlin aging study (pp. 259–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Baltes, M. M., Maas, I., Wilms, H. U., Borchelt, M., & Little, T. (1999).
Everyday competence in old and very old age: Theoretical considerations and empirical findings. In P. B. Baltes, & K. U. Mayer (Eds.),
The berlin aging study. Aging from 70 to 100 (pp. 384–402). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York:
Wiley.
Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In
I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 279–304). New
York: Plenum Press.
Christensen, D. L., Carp, F. M., Cranz, G. L., & Whiley, J. A. (1992).
Objective housing indicators as predictors of the subjective evaluations
of elderly residents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 225–236.
Clark-Plaskie, M., & Lachman, M. E. (1999). The sense of control in
midlife. In S. L. Willis, & J. D. Reid (Eds.), Life in the middle:
Psychological and social development in middle age (pp. 181–208). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Connell, B. R., & Sanford, J. A. (1997). Individualizing home modification
recommendations to facilitate performance of routine activities. In S.
Lanspery, & J. Hyde (Eds.), Staying put. Adapting the places instead of
the people (pp. 113–147). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Després, C. (1991). The meaning of home: Literature review and directions
for future research and theoretical development. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 8, 96–155.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective
well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
276–302.
Epstein, S. (1983). Aggregation and beyond: Some basic issues on the
prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality, 51, 360–392.
Fänge, A., & Iwarsson, S. (1999). Physical housing environment—
development of a self-assessment instrument. Canadian Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 66, 250–260.
Fänge, A., & Iwarsson, S. (2003). Accessibility and usability in housing—
Construct validity and implications for research and practice.
Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 1316–1325.
Fänge, A., & Iwarsson, S. (2005a). Changes in ADL dependence and
aspects of usability following housing adaptation—A longitudinal
perspective. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 296–304.
Fänge, A., & Iwarsson, S. (2005b). Changes in accessibility and aspects of
usability in housing over time—An exploration of the housing
adaptation process. Occupational Therapy International, 12, 44–59.
Gitlin, L. N. (1998). Testing home modification interventions: Issues of
theory, measurement, design, and implementation. In R. Schulz, G.
Maddox, & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and
geriatrics. Interventions research with older adults (pp. 190–246).
New York: Springer.
Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 18, 5–29.
Hayward, G. (1975). Home as an environmental and psychological
concept. Landscape, 20, 2–9.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
200
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A theory of control and its
implication for the life-span. Psychological Review, 102, 284–304.
Heywood, F., Oldman, C., & Means, R. (2002). Housing and home in later
life. Buckingham, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernadez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and
empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Iwarsson, S., Nygren, C., & Slaug, B. (2005). Cross-national and multiprofessional inter-rater reliability of the Housing Enabler. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 12(1), 29–39.
Iwarsson, S., Sixsmith, J., Oswald, F., Wahl, H.-W., Nygren, C., Sixsmith,
A., et al. (2005). The ENABLE-AGE project: Multi-dimensional
methodology for European housing research. In D. U. Vestbro, Y.
Hürol, & N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Methodologies in housing research (pp.
70–90). Gateshead: The Urban International Press.
Iwarsson, S., & Ståhl, A. (2003). Accessbility, usability and universal
design—Positioning and definition of concepts describing personenvironment relationships. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 57–66.
Iwarsson, S., Wahl, H.-W., & Nygren, C. (2004). Challenges of crossnational housing research with older people: Lessons learned from the
ENABLE-AGE Project. European Journal of Ageing, 1, 79–88.
Jirovec, R. L., Jirovec, M. M., & Bosse, R. (1984). Environmental
determinants of neighborhood satisfaction among urban elderly men.
The Gerontologist, 24(3), 261–265.
Kivett, V. (1988). Aging in a rural place: The elusive source of well-being.
Journal of Rural Studies, 4, 125–132.
Lachman, M. E. (1986). Locus of control in aging research: A case for
multidimensional and domain-specific assessment. Journal of Psychology and Aging, 1, 34–40.
Lachman, M. E., & Burack, O. R. (Eds.). (1993). Planning and control
processes across the life span: An overview. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 16, 131–143.
Lanspery, S., & Hyde, J. (Eds.). (1997). Staying put. Adapting the places
instead of the people. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Law, M., Cooper, B., Strong, S., Stewart, D., Rigby, P., & Letts, L.
(1996). The person-environment-occupation model: A transactional
approach to occupational performance. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 9–23.
Lawton, M. P., & Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In
C. Eisdorfer, & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult
development and aging (pp. 619–674). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric
patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 397–404.
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others,
and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control
construct: Vol. 1. Assessment methods. New York: Academic Press.
Manzo, L. C. (2003). Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of
emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 47–61.
Manzo, L. C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions
of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1), 67–86.
Marcus, C. C. (1995). House as a mirror of self. Berkeley (CA): Conari
Press.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). An evaluation of
incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical
properties. In G. A. Marcoulides, & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.),
Advanced statistical modelling (pp. 315–353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Mathes, J. (1978). Wohnverhalten, Familienzyklus und Lebenslauf
[Housing behaviour, family cycle and life-span.] In M. Kohli (Hrsg.),
Soziologie des Lebenslaufes [Lifespan Sociology.] (S. 154–172).
Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Miller, D. (Ed.). (2001). Home possessions. Material culture behind closed
doors. Oxford: Berg.
Moore, J. (2000). Placing home in context. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 20, 207–217.
Oswald, F., Mollenkopf, H., & Wahl, H. -W. (1999). Questionnaire on the
meaning of home. Unpublished Manuscript, The German Centre for
Research on Ageing.
Oswald, F., & Rowles, G. D. (2006). Beyond the relocation trauma in old
age: New trends in today’s elders’ residential decisions. In H.-W. Wahl,
C. Tesch-Römer, & A. Hoff (Eds.), New dynamics in old age:
Environmental and societal perspectives (pp. 127–152). Amityville,
New York: Baywood Publ.
Oswald, F., & Wahl, H.-W. (2005). Dimensions of the meaning of home.
In G. D. Rowles, & H. Chaudhury (Eds.), Home and identity in late
life: International Perspectives (pp. 21–45). New York: Springer.
Oswald, F., Wahl, H.-W., Martin, M., & Mollenkopf, H. (2003a). Toward
measuring proactivity in person-environment transactions in late
adulthood: The housing-related control beliefs questionnaire. Journal
of Housing for the Elderly, 17(1/2), 135–152.
Oswald, F., Wahl, H.-W., Martin, M., & Mollenkopf, H. (2003b). Toward
measuring proactivity in person–environment transactions in late
adulthood: The housing-related Control Beliefs Questionnaire. Journal
of Housing for the Elderly, 17(1/2), 135–152.
Oswald, F., Wahl, H.-W., Schilling, O., Nygren, C., Iwarsson, S.,
Sixsmith, A., et al. (in press). Relationships between housing and
healthy aging aspects in very old age. The Gerontologist.
Pinquart, M., & Burmedi, D. (2004). Correlates of residential satisfaction
in adulthood and old age: A meta-analysis. In H.-W. Wahl, R. J.
Scheidt, & P. G. Windley (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and
geriatrics, 23 (Aging in context: Socio-physical environments) (pp.
195–222). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.
Rowles, G. D. (1978). Prisoners of space? Exploring the geographical
experience of older people. Boulder (CO): Westview Press.
Rowles, G. D. (1983). Between worlds: A relocation dilemma for the
Appalachian elderly. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 17(4), 301–314.
Rowles, G. D., & Chaudhury, H. (Eds.). (2005). Coming home:
International perspectives on place, time and identity in old age. New
York: Springer Publishing Company.
Rowles, G. D., Oswald, F., & Hunter, E. G. (2004). Interior living
environments in old age. In H.-W. Wahl, R. J. Scheidt, & P. G.
Windley (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, 23 (Aging
in context: Socio-physical environments) (pp. 167–193). New York:
Springer Publishing Company.
Rowles, G. D., & Watkins, J. F. (2003). History, habit, heart and hearth:
On making spaces into places. In K. W. Schaie, H.-W. Wahl, H.
Mollenkopf, & F. Oswald (Eds.), Aging in the community: Living
arrangements and mobility (pp. 77–96). New York: Springer Publishing
Company.
Rubinstein, R. L., & De Medeiros, K. (2004). Ecology and the aging self.
In H.-W. Wahl, R. J. Scheidt, & P. G. Windley (Eds.), Annual review of
gerontology and geriatrics, 23 (Aging in context: Socio-physical
environments) (pp. 59–84). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Rubinstein, R. L., & Parmelee, P. A. (1992). Attachment to place and
representation of life course by the elderly. In I. Altman, S. M. Low
(Eds.), Human behavior and environment. Vol. 12: Place attachment.
(pp. 139–163). New York: Plenum Press.
Scherpenzeel, A. (1995). A question of quality: Evaluating survey questions
by multitrade-multimethod studies. Amsterdam: Nimmo.
Schulz, R., & Heckhausen, J. (1999). Aging, culture and control: Setting a
new research agenda. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences,
54B, P139–P145.
Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1991). Evaluating one’s life: A judgement
model of subjective well-being. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz
(Eds.), Subjective well-being. An interdisciplinary perspective
(pp. 27–47). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Oswald et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 187–201
Sixsmith, J. A. (1986). The meaning of home: An exploratory study in
environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6,
281–298.
Sixsmith, A. J., & Sixsmith, J. A. (1991). Transition in home experience in
later life. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 8(3),
181–191.
Sixsmith, A. J., Sixsmith, J. A. (2002). Adapting the HOOP instrument for
measuring the satisfaction with housing conditions. Unpublished
ENABLE-AGE working paper.
Slangen-de Kort, Y. (1999). A tale of two adaptations. Coping processes of
older persons in the domain of independent living. Eindhoven: University
Press Facilities.
Smith, J., Marsiske, M., & Maier, H. (1996). Differences in control beliefs
from age 70 to 105. Berlin: Max Planck Institute for Human
Development Unpublished manuscript.
Sommerville, P. (1997). The social construction of home. Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research, 14, 227–245.
Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Viele Gründe sprechen dagegen, und trotzdem
geht es vielen Menschen gut: Das Paradox des subjektiven Wohlbefindens [Many reasons speak against it, yet many people feel good: The
paradox of subjective well-being]. Psychologische Rundschau, 51(4),
185–197.
Stedman, R. S. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place. Predicting
behaviour from place-based cognitions, attitude and identity. Environment & Behavior, 34(5), 561–581.
201
United Nations Development Programme. (2001). Human development
report 2001. New York: Oxford University Press.
Veenhoven, R. (1996). Developments in satisfaction-research. Social
Indicators Research, 37, 1–46.
Wahl, H.-W. (2001). Environmental influences on aging and behavior. In
J. E. Birren, & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of
aging (5th ed, pp. 215–237). San Diego: Academic Press.
Wahl, H. -W., Gitlin, L. N. (2006). Environmental gerontology. In J. E.
Birren (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gerontology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier.
Wahl, H.-W., Oswald, F., & Zimprich, D. (1999). Everyday competence in
visually impaired older adults: A case for person-environment
perspectives. The Gerontologist, 39, 140–149.
Wahl, H. -W., Scheidt, R., & Windley, P. G. (Eds.). (2004). Aging in
context: Socio-physical environments (Annual Review of Gerontology
and Geriatrics, 2003). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Walden, R. (1998). Wohnzufriedenheit, Wohlbefinden und Wohnqualität
[Residential satisfaction, well-being, and housing quality]. In F.
Dieckmann, A. Flade, R. Schuemer, G. Ströhlein, & R. Walden (Eds.),
Psychologie und gebaute Umwelt. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungsbeispiele. [Psychology and the built environment: Concepts, methods,
application examples]. Darmstadt: Institut Wohnen und Umwelt.
Weidemann, S., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). A conceptual framework for
residential satisfaction. In I. Altman, & C. M. Werner (Eds.), Human
behavior and environment. Vol. 8: Home environments (pp. 153–182).
New York: Plenum Press.